Cindy,
I would appreciate if you allow me to post this:
To my supporters,
Your belief in me has helped sustane my drive in fighting back against the injustices in my case. Now I can prove what I have always known and that is that prosecutor Denis Tracy is a lying scoundrel!
Tracy had forensic scientist Lisa Turpen, of the Washington State Patrol, get on the witness stand and lie to the jurors about all of the DNA evidence.
Three DNA experts have written reports refuting the DNA analysis of Lisa Turpen. Their
reports are included in my petition to the Court of Appeals. This is all posted on
There you will find;
-I am excluded from all DNA evidance.
-There is sperm from “at least one” unknown male found in the accuser’s vagina.
-Police hid from me, the fact that the accuser picked another man in a photo line up at more certainty than she picked me.
I’ve been kept informed that many people out there have stood up for my honor. I am very
greatful.
I trust that this new evidence is more than enough to take on any hater.
Jack Venice
I kind of believe him. Even when he was first convicted something told me… i dunno about this ..
I never understood why he would rape when he was supposed to be with Hanna Hilton (last I heard up to his arrest).
Don’t believe this D-bag. Remember, she identified him by his tattoo on his upper left thigh which could only be seen if he had taken his pants off and about to rape her. Jack will get paroled when he’s in his late 30’s or early 40’s, he’s just too much of a piece of shit to be let go before then. idoknowjack.
Yeah, I’m not buying it either. What was he even doing in her room, naked (or in some state of undress), with a handful of other guys? Hell, his being in her room alone is fishy.
It’s not like porn guys are all that memorable (unless you count the creepy age and attractiveness discrepancies). They’re background characters. Props if you will. The average “joe” or “josie” will recognize female performer names but not male.
Every convict has some “expert” to dispute what the prosecution is or has presented. That’s what they are PAID to do.
This is to add to comment:
The victim did not see any legs here are the words in her Police STATEMENT”
Officer: Okay, could you see his bare legs then?
Kristen: Yeah, like from here down.
Officer:Did you have any, any, any idea of what those legs looked like? I mean no hair, a lot of hair?
Kristen: I don’t really remember …there’s, there’s hair on it.
SHE DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A TATTOO BECAUSE IT WAS NOT JACK VENICE. IF SHE HAD SEEN HIS LEGS LIKE YOU POINT OUT SHE WOULD OF SEEN THAT BIG TATTOO.
@pornster, How can you remember something that isn’t true and never happened? Based off of your comments, I am certain that you do not know Jack. He has always maintained his innocence and there are now three DNA EXPERTS backing that up. Where do you get your information?
I really admire the family’s steadfastness in standing up for Jack.
What Jack did to that innocent girl is too gross to describe. It’s well documented what he did that night, he was out prowling (literally) for college chicks, acting like a complete douchebag. He broke into a sorority and sexually assaulted the victim.
Everyone, I mean EVERYONE should stand together in unison and thank god the justice system got this one right.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-12-05/news/pullman-sex-limes-and-videotape/
Pornstar, the accuser actually never identified him by any of his tattoos. During the trial she said it was his face she could not forget, however, that is one of the main points of Jack’s fight. The accuser picked someone else in a previous photo lineup with greater certainty and with the photo lineup with Jack she wasn’t even sure if it was him she saw. Her certainty that it was Jack grew over time, a red flag that something wasn’t right. Memory does not get better over time and Medical Expert Dr. Guido Loyen comments on this. Much of her memory, as the accuser admits, is coming from a “dreamlike state” which is more susceptible to suggestion and change. This is evident because her certainty on a scale of 1 to 10 that it was Jack was first a 5-6 (several days after the incident), then 6-7 (several weeks before the trial), then finally she was 100% certain during the trial. Because of this the accuser’s positive identification of Jack loses credibility. She never once mentions any of his tattoos during the trial or investigation and her description of either of the two men she saw does not fit Jack.
Furthermore, new DNA evidence does not show Jack as one of the contributors but that of an unknown male. Even the forensic scientist who testified during Jack’s trial, Ms. T, admitted that Jack was included as a possible contributor within the statistic that 1 in 3 Americans could also have been possible contributors, meaning the findings were inconclusive. Although, it should be noted that Ms. T was not forthcoming with her findings and erred with her testimony. While the DNA sample shows the accuser and a man named Kyle Schott to be strong contributors, this was not true for Jack. So when Ms. T included both Jack and Kyle as possible contributors it reveals bias on her part and possibly prejudiced the jury. Also, Ms. T never mentioned that DNA from an unknown male was found. Plus, according to the other forensic scientists who reviewed these findings say that Jack should have never been included in such a statistic because not only does the DNA not match Jack’s but because DNA from an unknown male was found. Meaning that if Jack is to be included then a fourth individual has to be included as well. Ms. T’s testimony falls apart. Surprisingly, DNA tests were never done for either the boyfriend who was known to have had sex with the accuser 3 days prior to the rape or for the other potential suspect.
Pornstar, I have read that article 3 months ago and it is not documentation of what Jack did that night. The claims that Jack was out prowling for women was prosecutor Tracy’s theory of what he thought happened that night and what he wanted the jury to believe. When looking at Jack’s convictions closely it becomes apparent that they relied on conjecture and not fact.
No physical evidence places Jack at the scene of the crime and there was no evidence to connect him to the crime. The prosecutor claims that it was only Jack and Kyle who were together after the bars closed but there were several witnesses who saw three men. Two were identified as Jack and Kyle but the third was never identified. The presence of this third man was ignored during the trial and investigators did not look into it. The accuser only saw two men in her room so the question to be asked is who the two men were. Kyle fits the description of one and his DNA was found on evidence from the accuser’s room so he is definitely one of the two men. So then who is the other? Is it Jack? No. Jack not only does not fit the description the accuser gave police but no evidence placed him there.
The second man was described as having 2-3 inch long brown hair wearing a maroon shirt, khaki cargo shorts, and a maroon baseball hat. Jack has short blond hair and that night he wore a grey shirt and blue jeans.
The accuser does not mention blond hair until after she was shown a photo lineup a couple days after the reported rape. The photo lineup that included Jack was clearly biased, he was the only suspect shown with blond hair and his photo was the only one professionally taken. By this time she already knew (or had a high probability) that one of the suspects was a porn actor. She admitted during the trial that she was uncertain about Jack in the lineup but after she left the police station she saw newspapers with his picture on it. This means that there was a high chance that her memory, the little that she had, of her attackers was being tainted. Mind you that the trial took place a year after the incident giving a lot of time for her memory to be contaminated by suggestion. Also, the photo lineup was administered by police who were directly involved in the investigation revealing that police there did not follow any proper procedure. It is well known that police can give away subtle hints intentionally or unintentionally.
That Seattle Weekly article is actually one of the articles that made me suspicious of his convictions. Jack was convicted for two other residential burglaries but I found something was off. Even if Jack was at these other sororities no one called police for them. Witnesses said during the trial that they would have never called police if they did not hear about the rape. Witnesses saw no harm in what Jack was doing and basically said he was playing around. He did not harm anyone at these sororities, did not show intent to harm, and did not steal anything. Even the article notes that these actions if called in to police are met with minor punishments. This suggests that the burglary charges rested on the rape charge and prosecutor Mr. Tracy actually tells this to the jury at the beginning of the trial.
So basically what I’m trying to say is that after looking at evidence, testimonies, and police/forensic procedure Jack’s convictions are a complete sham. There is no way for people to be unified in the belief the Jack is guilty without doubt when everything about this case leaves nothing but doubt.
Gabe, Jack says he was too drunk to remember what he did so he can’t dispute the witnesses; of which there are plenty. And remember, he used a condom which negates the DNA excuse.
Even the guy that was with him admitted to what he and Jack did and he got thrown in prison as well.
You can do the song and dance all day and all night long but in the end what’s in the Seattle Weekly article is truly what happened.
Why was he breaking into sororities in the middle of the night? Can’t be anything innocent about doing that. Let him do the time and when he gets out he can get his life back together.
I suggest he give up booze and drugs tho. He still young enough to turn his life around.
No one was ever raped – the victim awoke to two men in her room and “believed” she had been sexually assaulted. Schott testified in court against Reid in exchage for a reduced sentence – he claimed he saw Reid “touch her” – Sexual intercourse NEVER took place – which is a requirement to be convicted of rape. Schott rolled over on him to save his own neck. This is the conservative Whitman county community making an example out of an adult performer – “We don’t tolerate scum” – unbelieveable – this kid never had a chance – I’m not saying he’s completely innocent – he screwed up big time!! He should have been charged with breaking and entering along with assault -not rape – I do feel for the victim – she did not deserve that – but to put a young man (Iraq War Veteran) in prison for a crime he didn’t commit is disgraceful and makes the situation that much worse. It amazes me how the media and public perception can completely undermine the legal process. All you idiots that pass judgement on someone before you know the facts need to wake up!
I’m not going by that article or any other type of media to make my decision on whether he is guilty or not. I’m going by the trial transcripts and police reports. Yes, several articles say that he told a reporter that he was too drunk to remember what happened. That may be true but that second guy, Kyle, was way too drunk as well. He admitted during the trial that he had between 10 to 15 drinks. After reading the police reports one can see that investigators caught Kyle in lie after lie. Also, after learning that Kyle had that much to drink it is not hard to deduce that he was confused and did not quite know what happened himself. During Kyle’s questioning, investigators gave away a lot of details of what they knew and with each new detail they gave Kyle’s story changed. Kyle even lied during the trial and it was clear he did not know himself what happened because parts of his account of that night did not fit the evidence.
So back to evidence, forensic scientists found one sperm cell on the vaginal swab and the DNA from it did not belong to either Kyle or Jack but to an unknown male. It was presumed to have belonged to the accuser’s boyfriend who had sex with her three days prior to the rape but the boyfriend’s DNA was never tested so we don’t know who the contributor was. The condom rapper was the only other piece of evidence with DNA on it. DNA found on it belonged to the accuser and Kyle but not Jack. Kyle claims that he handed a condom to Jack, meaning that if Jack touched the condom rapper his DNA should have been on there as well because he would have been the last one to touch it. This is not the case however. While it is clear that the accuser and Kyle are contributors, DNA of an unknown male was found, not Jack’s.
The accuser saw two men in her room, evidence proves that one was Kyle and he admits to that, evidence then proves that DNA from an unknown male is present. This DNA does not belong to Jack so the question that has to be asked is then who does it belong to.
The only witnesses for the rape were Kyle and the accuser herself. Kyle’s testimony is not credible because he constantly lied and never could get his story straight. The accuser’s account of what happened changed and grew in detail over a year before the trial so her testimony is not credible either. She originally told police that she saw two men in her room. She described one in a white shirt, taller of the two, and was farther away. The other was closer to her and she believed he was holding a condom. This man was described as having about 2 inch long brown hair wearing a maroon shirt, khaki cargo shorts, and a maroon baseball hat. Kyle was wearing a white shirt according to witnesses. Witnesses saw Jack in a grey shirt and blue jeans. Jack is shorter than Kyle but the description given from the accuser does not fit Jack but to an unidentified man. To reiterate, forensic evidence confirms the presence of an unknown man.
We don’t know where Jack was at this time, the defense claimed that he had already left to go back to his hotel. Unfortunately no one at the hotel was questioned until a year after the incident, the defense attorney erred. The timeline is not complete because it is not known when Jack returned to his hotel but the timeline places Jack in two places at the same time. Witnesses from Delta Gamma sorority saw Jack there and did not see him leave until 3:57 am. A computer at Kappa Alpha Theta, the scene of the rape, was accessed at 3:54 and the user searched for pornographic content. The prosecutor theorized that it was Jack, and Kyle testified that he thinks this is true. Kyle claims that at one point Jack said he was going to Google himself but evidence points that Jack did this at a house were people were playing beer pong. There, Jack was trying to prove that he was a pornstar and accessed a computer to show them photos. Witnesses confirm this. Again, the presence of an unidentified person is suggested.
Evidence and witness testimony does not place Jack at the scene of the crime. No evidence connects him to the crime itself. That Seattle Weekly article does not get into witness testimony or evidence but into conjecture from the prosecutor. Witness testimony does not confirm that Jack was out prowling for women, but that he was looking for people to have fun and party with. No witness, besides the accuser and Kyle, felt that he had any intent to harm anyone. Plus, as I already mentioned, the accuser and Kyle’s testimonies are not credible because of lies along with flaws within their accounts.
So we are to believe that a prosecuter and a forensic scientist just happened to commit a major felony just because they didn’t happen to like pornstars? But of course, we’re to believe Jack Venice who, just happened to enter a girl’s dorm room. We supposed to believe that a jury convicted some guy despite, as some people here claim, the evidence was overwhelming that he didn’t do it. Wasn’t there accusations that he raped Devon? The fact that Venice shows no remorse for the victim makes me think this guy is a major sicko. Sorry, I’m not buying this crap. Pornstars who do really bad stuff always try to come off as the victims. How gullible are you people? Pornstar rapes girl and is found guilty: porn people rush in to plead his innocence. Pornstar accuses guy of rape and cops find no evidence of a crime (Alana Evans): porn people rush in to defend his integrity. You people are unbelievable…on so many levels.
I hate to tell you @sargeant but prosecutors and forensic people commit felonies all the time…we had a forensic guy fuck over 230 people in 3 states because he had a axe to grind. We just had a prosecutor loose his job for misconduct….now I’m not saying that is what happened her..I’m just saying it’s not out of the norm. As for co defendants , I’ve seen guys plead out for a lesser deal when they weren’t really guilty. Ravens LB ray Lewis comes to mind. As for why, many factors, election year, pressure from anti porn people, or religious groups. Juries are a funny thing, OJ was found innocent by a jury , a jury in Houston found a Hindu pastor guilty of sexual assault when he told a girl his sperm was holy and she willingly gave up the puddy…so don’t ever think you can figure a jury out…no one can. Again, I have no clue about this case I was just responding to your post
I’m pretty much done with arguing about some loser like Jack. It’s obvious he was on the wrong path, guys like Jack and Max Hardcore and Chico Wang and Slizzy Borden and Rob Black and on and on and on. These despicable scum VICTIMIZE THE SHIT OUT OF PEOPLE! They always have excuses but in the end it all catches up to them. Jack is not innocent, he’s where he belongs.
A shitbag like Jack needs to have his 20’s and early 30’s taken away from him. I don’t blame the judge or jury that dispatched him to prison, to me they are heroes of our society, willing to do the right thing and support the victims, of which there are too many to count. Jack didn’t get fukked, he fukked himself.
Karma’s a bitch Jack, good luck on getting out before your 35.
@ Sergeant and @ pornstar, one example of the prosecutor lying is that at the beginning of the trial he told the jury that a sperm was found on the vaginal swab taken from the rape exam and said that it belonged to the boyfriend. However, later during the trial it turns out that the prosecutor asked the crime lab to not examine the DNA sample taken from the boyfriend. The boyfriend’s DNA sample was never tested and DNA from that sperm does not belong to either Jack or Kyle, so the contributor of that sperm is not known.
The forensic scientist, Lisa Turpen, withheld information and made some mistakes. Not even Jack was aware of this until after he requested the documents from the investigation and had them as well as evidence reviewed by three other forensic specialists. Greg Hampikian, PH.D., independently analyzed the DNA results from the condom rapper and found that Turpen did not take into account all the information present in the data. The accuser and Kyle were both clearly major contributors to the DNA mixture found on the condom rapper but this was not true for Jack. Hampikian further states that Turpen’s methodology and testimony gave a distorted view of the data, pointing out that even by her own analysis over 100 million Americans could not be excluded as contributors. Turpen’s testimony was misleading because she named Jack along with the accuser and Kyle as possible contributors, even though only the accuser and Kyle were clear contributors. Hampikian then states that this would lead to a prejudicial misconception falsely implicating Jack. Interestingly, Hampikian’s analysis found that the third DNA profile belongs to an unknown female.
Daniel Slowinski’s analysis concurs with Hampikian’s. Jack being a contributor is inconclusive. Both the accuser and Kyle are strong contributors but not Jack. DNA that does not belong to the accuser, Kyle, or Jack is present. Slowinski believes that the DNA mixture belongs to four people though; if Jack is a contributor his DNA is below detectable levels. Slowinski states that Turpen’s findings should have been testified as inconclusive as by Washington State Crime Lab guidelines because more than three profiles were found and although Jack cannot be excluded he cannot be included because his DNA is not detected. Washington State Crime Lab violated their guidelines and Ms. Turpen did not disclose this information. Slowinski also disagrees with the Popstats statistic (1 in 3 Americans as contributors) because incomplete DNA profiles were used, and further states that the boyfriend’s DNA should have been tested as of standard procedure.
Dr. Schulz’s analysis also finds that the accuser and Kyle are contributors but Jack cannot be included. Again, DNA of an unknown person is present and Dr. Schulz suggests that the boyfriend’s DNA be tested so it can be contrasted with the mixture.
I cannot say this for everyone on that jury but one of the jurors, juror # 9, did show strong prejudice against the porn industry and those who work in it. During the jury selection this juror said that he believed that it was “morally reprehensible” and told the court that he counsels people against porn.
Dr. Guido Loyen, a psychologist, states that because many have prejudice against the porn industry, as juror # 9 had, and that the jury was asked to only consider sources within the trial, the jury should have been shown an illustration of the industry without prejudice. Jack’s occupation in the industry was mentioned many times and was used by the prosecutor to convince the jury that Jack was more likely to be guilty of the crime. Because the porn industry was not analyzed without prejudice and how it was used in court by the prosecutor, the jury relied on their own opinion of the porn industry which was gained outside the courtroom.
Dr. Loyen also questions the credibility of the accuser’s testimony. He notes that her statements became more detailed over time, pointing out that her testimony during the trial was much more detailed than what she reported to police immediately after the reported rape. Dr. Loyen also points out that her memory is recalled from a dreamlike state, meaning that it was highly susceptible to reinterpretation and distortion which would lead to “false memories.”
Kyle Schott, who was found guilty, lied multiple times during the investigation and trial. He was facing the same punishment as Jack but for agreeing to testify against Jack, Kyle received a plea deal of 13 months and only has to be a registered sex offender for 10 years. It was believed that Kyle was protecting someone but the prosecution dismissed it saying that at this point Kyle had no reason to protect anyone and that Kyle was now being cooperative with the state. However, in my personal opinion, this claim sounds hollow in contrast with such a generous plea deal. I hope Kyle’s testimony gets analyzed too, I’m curious as to what experts like Dr. Loyen would find.
I’m not sure what you mean by saying Jack does not show remorse for the victim. He has stated before that he is sorry that she was raped, but he denies that he was involved. I hope you do not mean that his denial is a show of lack of remorse.
Don’t take my word for it, investigate for yourselves. You will find the actual police reports and the new DNA evidence on udontnojack.com… I had to acquire the trial transcripts elsewhere. I’m not going to argue, but I do believe that people should investigate this case before they wantonly condemn.
Here is a new video for Chris/Jack case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov60BI3k-QA
Pornster you need to go to the web site and read, i can tell you have not. Just to give you a clue the new evidence proves that Jack is not on the condom wrapper. Let spell it out for you he has to touch it to open and since his dna is not on the condom wrapper that means he was not at their. The victim Ms. Erich said there where 2 guys. that is about all she really could say she was drinking also…….